I posted about my findings earlier this year. Since then I dont think anyone has looked into it. With the 25th Anniversary of the genocide against males that is commonly centred on Srebrenica, I hereby reopen this topic, and encourage the reader to take the baton from me.

I can see things. Things such as the massive decrease in the sex ratio in Sierra Leone after the British regime's war there in 2000. And in winter, I was on this interesting webpage -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio#Countries where you can click the arrows above each column where it breaks down the gender ratio by agegroup. This sends the - at least official - sex ratios of the most extreme countries to the top of the list.

Try for yourself: Open this link in a new tab. At the time of access, the data is apparently from the 2016 CIA World Factbook.

Try it with the age group '15-24 years'. Press twice if it sends the highest sex ratios to the top. At the top, just under the US Virgin Islands, you will see that it lists Montenegro as the sovereign country with the lowest male-female ratio. ie. the fewest males to females, in that age range.

In short this means that, going by the date of the census, there were extremely few males in Montenegro, relative to females, between the ages of around 15 and their mid-twenties. And that shortage, depending on the year of the data, is still the case of course, just with a slightly older age range today - the year of the data is stated as 2016, though cites 2018 in the link, presumably accessed later. This would mean that the 'vanished' male population in question would be roughly 19 to 28 as of 2020. That extremity (0.83 males to females) is the fewest males to females in the world, according to this data.

Of course, there is always going to be a country, in a list of countries, with the lowest ratio.

NOW though, try doing the same thing with the next column.

Again, click the 'down' arrow in the heading box - this time the 25-54 year-olds column - and see what happens. Do you see Montenegro on your screen? No. You don't.

Scroll down through the list of countries, until you find Montenegro.

Yes. Hopefully you see now why I have brought this to your attention.

Go up to the top of the table again and click the 'up' arrow next to the same heading, '25-54'. You will now see Montenegro on your screen. Reversing the comparison, between two age ranges, Montenegro has leapt from the country with the 9th-most males (11th overall) to the country with the Fewest males (2nd overall), in the World.

Try this for yourself.

With such an extreme change - having the 11th-most young men to having the fewest in the world - further investigation is warranted.

​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

We know that 'war' is an easy answer. But lots of countries have been to war and not exhibited such an extreme change - to this extent - between succeeding generations. Moreover, the data points to the young males affected vanishing, on average, around the time of the British and later British and American atrocities and blitzkrieg carpet-bombing of the Former Yugoslavia. At the earliest, the older males of this age range have disappeared when they were infants or children. And yet no such disappearance seems to have occured with female children at this time.

While conscription can cause collateral or even intentional mass genocide of young men and boys, the boys of Montenegro who seem to have simply vanished, were too young at the height of the war and the US/UK invasion, to even have died due to conscription! They were not killed because they were in uniform - as they were too young during the war to be conscripted - and yet their deaths are completely gender-based (as females of the same generation appear to have survived their youth as per usual). I can think of only two likely explanations for this - the first is that Montenegran medicine and scanning was advanced enough from around 1992 to around 2001 to gender-select who was born, and that this must have been a widespread policy or a general fashion. Evidence should exist if this were the case. But it doesn't seem likely. And otherwise, you can't keep the basic birthrate, then 'make more babies, but the extras should just be female ones'. This rather disturbing phenomenon doesn't happen through 'extra births' of the surplus gender, but through a high increase of deaths in the deficit gender.

For completeness' sake, there is a chemical option, such as that found in Canada and elsewhere where compounds such as Bisphenol A in the environment have the effect of endocrine-disruption and a resultant high female birthrate (accidentally or otherwise). Why this would be the case in impoverished and undeveloped Montenegro would also need some convincing evidence.

What this data trend suggests then - data anomalies notwithstanding - is that between - approximately - 1992 and 2001 in Yugoslavia, especially in the region of Montenegro, there is a strong possibility of a mass genocide against male children. We already know of the genocide of males at Srebrenica, but hardly anything has been discussed in the western propaganda about it, nor of any wider-reaching genocidalist policy - from the British/US invaders, or from the national government. We (I) do know however, that around the same period, in 2000, Sierra Leone was occupied by the British fascists (Blair's regime), and that there was a dramatic disappearance of young males there as well.

This, then, is not just a question of whether this massive discrepancy in gender ratio could have been caused by mass infanticide/genocide of male children in the Montenegro region - but a question, starting with 'why the fuck', of how the perpetual brainwashing of the mass media has not been addressed, and how the hell this could possibly be omitted from reportage.

It is the 25th Anniversary of the genocide of males associated with Srebrenica.

Maybe it's time that someone looks into whether this was part of an even wider male genocide?

​

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Anyone calling themselves a male rights activist has to understand the importance of Srebrenica for the movement. Why? Because it is the only single male genocide that has ever been acknowleged as such by the Western mainstream media. The mass media has never reported on the conscription of men and boys, nor on prison gender statistics, nor on average gender ratios for the homeless, the unemployed, victims of violence and murder, or suicides. It has never addressed - or indeed ceased with its own relentless - feminazi, misandric media agendas. It does not report on female-only support, charity, funding or awareness campaigns.

There are only two male oppressions that the Western mass media has ever acknowledged (at least in the 90s to the present day).

  1. The "Men Last" policy in disaster situations, which was partially illustrated in the blockbuster film 'Titanic' - and only by this one media production
  2. The Srebrenica Genocide

(A minority of war films do show conscripts, but they do not address why every single one of them is male.)

Therefor, considering the extreme rarity of such mainstream-acknowledged topics, they have to be used - both to address the issues specific to them, but also as a springboard into the wider realities of male oppression in the post-1997 era.

I have independently discovered this data trend. It is time for others to step up and take the baton to find and communicate to the Western world the sort of things that lower-status men are suffering in this Feminazi era. Why not start when Srebrenica is back in the news, with the single male genocide that the Western status-quo failed to deny? There is deeper independent research, questioning, communicating and publicising that needs to be done. And if youre too lazy, then refer it to someone who can.

The Western powers-that-be made a mistake with Srebrenica. They actually reported it. They cant go back on that and deny its existence, or say that somehow only women were the victims, like they do with every male issue. We've got them on this one.

Take this baton.